Newsgroups: comp.std.unix
Path: utzoo!utgpu!news-server.csri.toronto.edu!rpi!zaphod.mps.ohio-state.edu!wuarchive!uunet!uunet.UU.NET!sef
From: mib@geech.gnu.ai.mit.edu (Michael I Bushnell)
Subject: Re: access permissions in 1003.1
Message-ID: <1991Jun4.221021.26605@uunet.uu.net>
Originator: sef@uunet.UU.NET
Sender: usenet@uunet.uu.net (UseNet News)
Nntp-Posting-Host: uunet.uu.net
X-Submissions: std-unix@uunet.uu.net
Organization: Free Software Foundation, Cambridge, MA
References: <1991Jun3.192534.28089@uunet.uu.net> <1991Jun3.225808.8518@uunet.uu.net>
Date: Tue, 4 Jun 1991 21:47:09 GMT
Approved: sef@uunet.uu.net (Moderator, Sean Eric Fagan - comp.std.unix)

Submitted-by: mib@geech.gnu.ai.mit.edu (Michael I Bushnell)

In article <1991Jun3.225808.8518@uunet.uu.net> OFM writes:

   [ Personal comment here:  the one vendor I personally know who had
     qualms about full POSIX compliance did so because of backwards-
     compatibility problems.  I suspect many vendors will have the
     same reservations.  So, how about it:  is full compliance worth
     breaking old programs/scripts?  --mod ]

I'm most interested in Posix.1, so I'll address that.  If a compiler
switch is provided (like gcc -ansi) then full compliance is possible.
Given the _POSIX_SOURCE feature test macro, OS designers can load all
they want in, and turn it off only when _POSIX_SOURCE is defined.  I'm
writing a Posix compliant system which will also be 4.4BSD compatable;
I know whereof I speak.

	-mib


Volume-Number: Volume 23, Number 86